Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[bolie]

Ah, but they dont use, or need, attributes for the base system to work as it is.

Except that the base system refers to attributes in several places without explaining how such rules affect players. According to the rules, monsters are immune to ray of enfeeblement. In fighting giants, my wizard would cheerfuly use ray of enfeeblement, reducing their strength by 1d4+9. But then, strength doesn't affect monster attacks or damage. So if I hit a human fighter with ray of enfeeblement, he can barely move, his attacks and damage are penalized, and he can't even carry his armor. If I hit an ogre with it, there is no effect.

The rules don't even address this. As written, the base system gives an absurd result. The spells in the basic book should work with the base monsters without a house rule.

People have tried to address your comments. But your operating on a different philosophical paradigm than C&C 's. So the answers are going to seem unsatisfying. Most of it basicly comes from what 'people are used too'. When comming from a system that provides all the answers to a system that functions on a 'fill in the blank' philosophy, the contrast is going to cause much misscommunication of fundamental principles.

Well, no one has really explained how spell casting should work. No one has explained how overbearing and charging were supposed to work in the base system other than the goofy way it's explained in the book, now. The one explanation I got for how polymorph is supposed to work is deeply unsatisifying and makes the spell not nearly as useful. That's fine, but my comments on polymorph generated a lot of discussion and only one post addressing my point.

Its not that people dont care, its that many of them don't have a problem with the way the system works. For them, save for a few typo ommissions, the base system works, but they just want to add a bit of detail to suit their own preferences. Its not 'vital' to the core C&C system. Many just like to tinker.

Don't get me wrong, I really am trying to understand these concerns. I have been wending my way through the vast pile of information that is 3rd edition (and this is just the 3.5 phb) and trying to understand why it all seems so neccessary. But again I also operate on a 'just enough' information needed philosophy and my mind wants to shunt away near 3/4ths of the 3rd ed books since its overload. So I have a hard time wanting to deal with the newest edition as a whole. I've played it, but I've played it as I always have, just enough info on the sheet which I then proceed to practically ignore from then on, untill the gamemaster tells me I have xp.

I like to tinker. I have found and described ways in which the rules written in the C&C PHB are broken. I would be much happier to tinker with a cleaner rule set. I stand by my comment. People who love C&C are not all that concerned with the rules. I suspect that many of them either gloss over or fix the problems without thinking about it. This is fine, but does not mean the problems don't exist.

Bolie IV

 

[Akrasia]

... People who love C&C are not all that concerned with the rules. I suspect that many of them either gloss over or fix the problems without thinking about it. This is fine, but does not mean the problems don't exist.
...

Well, I am concerned with the rules/guidelines. I just don't find them to have nearly as many problems as you do. (I agree that some of them could be more clearly explained, and hopefully this will be improved in the 2nd printing. But I think one can gain a firm understanding of the C&C rules from the PHB, and use that understanding to smoothly run fast paced games.)

Also, I suspect that many of the 'gaps' you are fixated on will likely be filled in by the M&T and/or CKG -- e.g. how spells like the ray of enfeeblement affect monsters (who do not have individual stats). I think that maintaining a 'separate' system for monsters, etc., is an essential part of C&C's appeal, viz. ease of prep and play. But the implications for this 'separate' system were perhaps inadequately considered in the spell descriptions (which were partially drawn from the SRD). I suspect that minor oversights like this one will be addressed in the M&T and/or CKG.

 

[Treebore]

Your right Bolie, polymorph and Ray do need much better clarification. Please take the time to e-mail the Troll Lords to make sure they address them, just like i have with the half dozen or so things I think should be better handled in a reprint.

This is a work in progress, and I for one want to help it evolve into a much stronger, yet still simple, system.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Polymorph will make my head explode. I don't know if there's much point of criticizing C&C's take on shapeshifting when DnD's take is also overly complicated and overpowered.

But it does beg a question ... can you take a C&C giant and give him character levels? Will he be any different from other giants other than having different primes? Will he have actual attributes, and how do you determine them?

 

[gideon_thorne]

But it does beg a question ... can you take a C&C giant and give him character levels? Will he be any different from other giants other than having different primes? Will he have actual attributes, and how do you determine them?

Most of this will be covered in either the M&T or CKG where it belongs.

But I'll again note, in the base C&C system monsters dont have nor need attributes. All that sort of thing are optional extras that are likely to be addressed in one of the latter two books.

Course if someone really wants to give a monster character levels all one has to do is roll 3d6 and give em an appropriate character class.

The CKG is the tweaky advice book that should amply satisfy most anyone who needs such information.

 

[Remathilis]

I dunno... :\

I thought C&C was going to be "lite" D&D, basically 3.x but without lot of complications (feats, skill points, prestige classes, large monster stat blocks) however, I'm seeing it more of "Lets take AD&D1/Basic and reverse the armor class" Less use of the d20 mechanics, more of the refining 1e with a fresh coat of paint.

That might be grossly unfair to a game I've not seen in person (and you don't have to tell me so), but some of the things mentioned (different XP charts, no skill/nwp style system, monsters as cardboard cutouts) seem counterproductive and limit my options as both a player and a DM. I hated 2e because my house rules binder was nearly as large as the monster's manual.

It seems to me that C&C is built for two distinct types of players: "Hack it and take its treasure. Next room!" style where the rules beyond killing it or it killing you are unnecessary or "We ROLE-play so hardcore we only use stats for manditory rolls like saves or combat" where game sessions can go by without the need of a character sheet. Both are extremes, but it does leave out alot of middle ground where the C&C rules don't tread.

This from a person who believes Rule's Cyclopedia was one of the best versions of D&D ever. YYMV.

 

[gideon_thorne]

I dunno... :\

I thought C&C was going to be "lite" D&D, basically 3.x .

Common misconception. It was never intended to be 'lite' 3rd ed.

It's an OGL game base geared towards a certain philosophical game style.

 

[bolie]

Well, some of my comments are spurred by the following comment on the Troll Lords forum:

No: We are not going to re-address any rules. We are not going to re-write any rules or add any rules. The C&CPH stands as it is. The rules were thoroughly playtested and hammered out over many long months of debate and test. We are extremely happy with them.

The above was posted by Stephen Chenault.

I've also been responding to numerous comments that C&C is complete and unbroken and there's nothing wrong with it.

The above bothers me. I think there are some rules that need to be re-addressed. I think some rules need to be re-written. I understand that they don't want to make a bunch of changes so soon after printing the game, but I'd rather they fix the problems now than later (or never).

Bolie IV

 

[gideon_thorne]

Well, some of my comments are spurred by the following comment on the Troll Lords forum:



The above was posted by Stephen Chenault.

Further down this was posted by Davis as clarification.

we will correct mistakes. we will also clarify some rules and go into a little more detail on some (such as back attacks). We will correct the spells section and we already have a completely rewritten spell section with corrections completed. Ohh yeh and we will ad info to the equipment list.

However, the rules will not change. Class abilities are as they stand, xp progression is as it stands. The thing about this is, these are the baseline rules that will never ever ever change.

If the players CKs don't like something we want them to change it for their game. I know it is impossible to make 100% of the people happy 100% of the time. That was not our goal. The goal of modularity was to create a game so easy to manipulate and house rule that you can create a game you are 100% happy with.

I've also been responding to numerous comments that C&C is complete and unbroken and there's nothing wrong with it.

And many people find that the first phb and the 'boxed set' cover the essentials and there is sufficient information and that the rules work for them. This is a matter of opinion.

The additional books (M&T/CKG) will cover additional information. The game may be more 'complete' for others then.

The C&C Players HandBook certainly has enough information for player characters, however. And perhaps enough information for fairly experienced game masters of other D&D incarnations to work with.

 

[Virel]

You know, I can understand nostalgia, but let's face it, first edition had horrible balance issues, and lacked a ton of rules that forced people into creating and adopting a myriad amount of house rules. My own opinion is that if you're not happy with 3rd edition, and you think 1st edition is going to solve your problems, then I have some swamp land to sell you. Folks, there are other systems out there in the world.

<snip>
According to my friend, it's 1st edition, with some of the balance problems (read: monks) fixed.

Sure that can happen in 1st ed and it can happen in other editions too. As for the monk being a balance issue, no one has played a monk since the mid 1980's IMC. Fighting for each level after 7th and being challenged to defend the level after it was earned, prevented anyone from reaching beyond 11th level as monk IMC but several managed to get themselves killed trying.

I look forward to getting a copy of C&C and reading over it thanks to the links to the reviews posted.